Reading HR 3200 once again.

Rather than to add on to the long comment stream following Reading HR 3200, I'd like to address the myth of a spontaneous movement behind the disruption of town hall meetings. Rachel Maddow does a good job here of telling you exactly which professional lobbyists are organizing it all using published data. There have been published photographs showing the same faces at these meetings that were at the Republican raid that stopped the Bush V. Gore recount in Miami in 2000 and they are not locals, but professional lobbyists. They were not there to express their opinions but to keep democracy from happening and they are not at the town hall meetings to add to the discussion, but to prevent the discussion and therefore protesting the use of unregistered lobbyists to prevent the democratic process is not an offense against free speech but a defense of it. OK? Can we end this line of discussion?

The argument that the wording of HR3200 is too obscure for the average guy and therefore "alternate" interpretations have a measurable degree of probability is a flimsy version of ad ignorantiam: I don't understand A, therefore B. Anyone should recognize this as a fallacy and recognize that you're not going to fool anyone here with it.

I don't have a lot of trouble reading the bill for what that's worth and I certainly don't have any trouble discerning that a discussion of limiting our of pocket expense for the insured doesn't mean "rationing" and the provision to pay for you doctor's time when discussing living wills isn't a "death panel." I surely don't have any trouble discounting the tirades of someone who insists these lies are true.

The only conclusion one may legitimately make from any difficulty in understanding is that one's opinion is based upon a minimum of information and most likely to reflect prejudice. If you don't understand HR 3200 don't tell me what it means and don't tell me Sarah Palin might have a point because the wording is too complex for you, OK?